Chess
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    So I've been watching The Queen's Gambit, while (I think) losing to @facefon on "Chess Ultra".  Anyone else play, either online or IRL?  

    I think I basically hate it, cos I feel I should be better than I am and then over-think things and then get annoyed when I fuck stuff up.  But yeah at times it's fun.  Maybe I should play more to git gud, but I don't think I could ever play enough.
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    Oh I just discovered http://www.thebearandbadger.co.uk/discussion/1623/x/p1.  Fucked it.
  • I enjoy watching the occasional match summary on the tubes but I doubt I can muster anything like a challenge in an actual match.
  • My wife watched that show recently and asked me how to play, so that was a nice evening. I’m the same as you though muzzy, not very good and make stupid mistakes very easily. I actually used to be in the after school chess club with my brother (only in primary school), but like everything he’s quite competitive and I’m very much not, so he’s always been a lot better than me.
  • A work colleague routinely thrashed me at chess. It's unlike a lot of games I play because there are no random elements - it's all about planning and I seem to be better at improvising. I think if I read up about strategies I'd do better. I've got a chess app on my phone, so there's no excuse not to practice.
    PSN : time_on_my_hands
  • b0r1s
    Show networks
    Xbox
    b0r1s
    PSN
    ib0r1s
    Steam
    ib0r1s

    Send message
    SW-2099-8822-2505 - Boris - Goldenisle - Apples
  • I used to play a fair bit many years ago. Can’t say I’m good, but enjoy it. Recently played a sesh during staycation with the wife while teaching the moves to my daughter. I should make it a regular thing with them.
    I am a FREE. I am not MAN. A NUMBER.
  • Yeah, I am getting the kids into it. They do it at school, but...
  • I would like chess more if it wasn't possible for anyone to remember prevous games/tactics etc. like if every game was fresh where you know the rules but other than that you're making it up. not that i've ever been good enough to learn any tactics or played anyone that good, but it does put me off.
    "Like i said, context is missing."
    http://ssgg.uk
  • davyK
    Show networks
    Xbox
    davyK13
    Steam
    dbkelly

    Send message
    I would like chess more if it wasn't possible for anyone to remember prevous games/tactics etc. like if every game was fresh where you know the rules but other than that you're making it up. not that i've ever been good enough to learn any tactics or played anyone that good, but it does put me off.

    Check out Fischer chess.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess
  • interesting cheers. I was wondering if there might be a variant where your first couple of moves are done 'blind' so you don't know how each other started, which might create a random setup, though i guess it would be messy and ace players would just be consevative or work back to a known plan once they see the layout.
    "Like i said, context is missing."
    http://ssgg.uk
  • anyone fancy playing? I use the new chess app
    Currently playing Animal Crossing
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    It's that this? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chess

    If so, happy to try, but I'm really not very good!
  • Fuck, thought it was the musical.
    retroking1981: Fuck this place I'm off to the pub.
  • Chess peeps, I really fucking enjoyed this video.

    Don't try and place me in a box, you cocks. If there's one thing I'm not, it's fucking rectangular.
  • davyK
    Show networks
    Xbox
    davyK13
    Steam
    dbkelly

    Send message
    There's a doc about the 2nd Kaspersky match which generates a bit of controversy about that. There was a move in one game (game 2?) that Kaspersky thought looked dodgy - had signs of human intervention in his opinion. He said he never got over that move as he was never satisfied by IBM's explanation. And so his focus was gone. IBM won by a single game in a 6 game match.

    Maybe that was sour grapes. But maybe not. Chess matches at the highest level are all about psychology - something a machine is obviously impervious to.

    Kasperksy played a certain way against computers - abusing their weaknesses and that's how we won the 1st match. Maybe that was his undoing in the rematch?

    It could have been a development in the tech that flummoxed him. But maybe it wasn't as IBM were embarrassed by the machine's performance in the first match where Kaspersky won easily. The machine was disassembled afterwards and IBM enjoyed a share price increase. At the end Kaspersky was still asking of the diagnostic logs of "that" game.

    Deep Blue was a work in progress even during the matches and Kaspersky was able to detect this. So as an actual match it wasn't valid really - the machine was changed overnight usually. But as an exercise in AI dev, obviously it was extremely valuable.

    Could have been "cheating", could be IBM protecting their IP. Deep Blue was a stepping stone toward their cloud AI "Watson" service.

    It's academic now as chess has been mastered by AI now anyhow. It seems even Go has been toppled now. Watched a doc about that and a match against a Go master which the machine won.
  • Kaspersky... isn’t that antivirus software?!
    I am a FREE. I am not MAN. A NUMBER.
  • Unless you meant Kasparov? Dunno. I’m probably making myself look stupid now.
    I am a FREE. I am not MAN. A NUMBER.
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    First time for everything
  • davyK
    Show networks
    Xbox
    davyK13
    Steam
    dbkelly

    Send message
    Feck me.....

    Yeah - Kasparov.

    We used to use Kaspersky in work!!!!
  • acemuzzy wrote:
    It's that this? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chess If so, happy to try, but I'm really not very good!

    hi, it's what chess with friends is now called
    Currently playing Animal Crossing
  • davyK wrote:
    There's a doc about the 2nd Kaspersky match which generates a bit of controversy about that. There was a move in one game (game 2?) that Kaspersky thought looked dodgy - had signs of human intervention in his opinion. He said he never got over that move as he was never satisfied by IBM's explanation. And so his focus was gone. IBM won by a single game in a 6 game match. Maybe that was sour grapes. But maybe not. Chess matches at the highest level are all about psychology - something a machine is obviously impervious to. Kasperksy played a certain way against computers - abusing their weaknesses and that's how we won the 1st match. Maybe that was his undoing in the rematch? It could have been a development in the tech that flummoxed him. But maybe it wasn't as IBM were embarrassed by the machine's performance in the first match where Kaspersky won easily. The machine was disassembled afterwards and IBM enjoyed a share price increase. At the end Kaspersky was still asking of the diagnostic logs of "that" game. Deep Blue was a work in progress even during the matches and Kaspersky was able to detect this. So as an actual match it wasn't valid really - the machine was changed overnight usually. But as an exercise in AI dev, obviously it was extremely valuable. Could have been "cheating", could be IBM protecting their IP. Deep Blue was a stepping stone toward their cloud AI "Watson" service. It's academic now as chess has been mastered by AI now anyhow. It seems even Go has been toppled now. Watched a doc about that and a match against a Go master which the machine won.

    That's covered in this documentary. 

    Basically the IBM guy says that Kasperov was correct in the first game, he was still just playing computer chess, so deep blue as good as it was, still acted along the same risk/reward probability lines as any other computer, it just had the power to calculate waaaaaay more outcomes when it was deciding which move to make. 

    However for the second game, the IBM guy says they trained Deep Blue extensively to play from the position that it wound up in in game 2 before it made the suspicious move. They identified that as a weakness after the first game and specifically made the system play from those kinds of positions so that it would be better at defending itself from them, so it made a move that it had either seen during the training, or that it had given additional weighting to during the calculations for the move because of the scenarios that had played out after the first game.
    Don't try and place me in a box, you cocks. If there's one thing I'm not, it's fucking rectangular.
  • Ace just hit me with a good move. Cat is hanging with pigeons.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • I'm up for playing chess with some or all of you.
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    Facewon wrote:
    Ace just hit me with a good move. Cat is hanging with pigeons.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures!
  • davyK
    Show networks
    Xbox
    davyK13
    Steam
    dbkelly

    Send message
    Roujin wrote:
    There's a doc about the 2nd Kaspersky match which generates a bit of controversy about that. There was a move in one game (game 2?) that Kaspersky thought looked dodgy - had signs of human intervention in his opinion. He said he never got over that move as he was never satisfied by IBM's explanation. And so his focus was gone. IBM won by a single game in a 6 game match. Maybe that was sour grapes. But maybe not. Chess matches at the highest level are all about psychology - something a machine is obviously impervious to. Kasperksy played a certain way against computers - abusing their weaknesses and that's how we won the 1st match. Maybe that was his undoing in the rematch? It could have been a development in the tech that flummoxed him. But maybe it wasn't as IBM were embarrassed by the machine's performance in the first match where Kaspersky won easily. The machine was disassembled afterwards and IBM enjoyed a share price increase. At the end Kaspersky was still asking of the diagnostic logs of "that" game. Deep Blue was a work in progress even during the matches and Kaspersky was able to detect this. So as an actual match it wasn't valid really - the machine was changed overnight usually. But as an exercise in AI dev, obviously it was extremely valuable. Could have been "cheating", could be IBM protecting their IP. Deep Blue was a stepping stone toward their cloud AI "Watson" service. It's academic now as chess has been mastered by AI now anyhow. It seems even Go has been toppled now. Watched a doc about that and a match against a Go master which the machine won.
    That's covered in this documentary.  Basically the IBM guy says that Kasperov was correct in the first game, he was still just playing computer chess, so deep blue as good as it was, still acted along the same risk/reward probability lines as any other computer, it just had the power to calculate waaaaaay more outcomes when it was deciding which move to make.  However for the second game, the IBM guy says they trained Deep Blue extensively to play from the position that it wound up in in game 2 before it made the suspicious move. They identified that as a weakness after the first game and specifically made the system play from those kinds of positions so that it would be better at defending itself from them, so it made a move that it had either seen during the training, or that it had given additional weighting to during the calculations for the move because of the scenarios that had played out after the first game.

    What I watched was quite old (think I have the DVD - just checked yeah - called Game Over - Kasparov and the Machine) so it's interesting to hear an update as what I watched left it a bit murky - probably trying to create a bit of a drama when the real story is they got their arse handed to them and learned from that , came back and won - which was kind of inevitable I suppose.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!